Welcome to the new Becker-Posner Blog, maintained by the University of Chicago Law School.

03/24/2013

Mexican Immigration to the United States—Posner

Becker is unquestionably correct that economic factors provide the principal explanation for the sharp drop in Mexican immigration in the last four years. Either higher unemployment in the United States or lower unemployment in Mexico would tend to reduce Mexican immigration to the United States, and the combination of both trends in recent years has made the fall in immigration steeper than it would have been had one but not both forces been at work. The unemployment rate is still almost 8 percent in the United States but it has fallen to 5 percent in Mexico.

Although the decline in Mexican immigration is a good illustration of the economics of immigration, its significance for both the United States and Mexico probably is small. The United States attracts more immigrants than any other country in the world, and if it wants to offset the decline in Mexican immigration with an increase in immigration from other countries (including other Central American countries), it can do so effortlessly. How many Mexicans live in the United States rather than in Mexico probably has little effect on Mexico either, since Mexicans living in the United States remit large amounts of money to their relatives in Mexico.

Just as financial capital moves more or less effortlessly across national borders in search of higher returns, human capital as well is increasingly mobile. The ability of Mexicans to work on either side of the U.S.-Mexican border benefits both the United States and Mexico. Immigration reform now being discussed in Congress will if enacted reduce barriers to the international movement of human capital even further, and can therefore be compared to the successful post-World War II movement for the reduction of tariff barriers to international trade.

The diminution in Mexican immigration to the United States has greater political than economic significance. It has reduced the hostility to immigrants, a hostility that played a role in the licking that the Republican Party took in last November’s national elections, and by reducing that hostility facilitates immigration reform.

I do not think we should return to the era, which ended in about 1920, of unrestricted immigration to the United States. What has changed since then is that the country is considerably more crowded, and with an existing population in excess of $300 million additional population contributes to pollution, water shortages, extinctions, other environmental harms, infrastructure costs, and traffic congestion. In addition, the expansion in public benefits in recent decades can attract immigrants from very poor countries who have little prospect of gainful employment. So immigration has to be regulated. But so for that matter so does international trade in products, services, and financial capital. The goal of U.S. immigration policy should not be to discourage or encourage immigration, but to admit as immigrants (besides refugees and family members) only persons who have good prospects for making a net contribution to the U.S. economy.

Because of the difficulty of policing our long border with Mexico effectively, our large population of illegal immigrants is largely Mexican. Illegal immigration drives many Americans crazy, although I’m not clear why. Most illegal immigrants are productive workers and receive few public benefits. Their expulsion is neither feasiible nor (because illegal immigrants are a significant part of the U.S. labor force) desirable from an economic standpoint. The diminution in Mexican immigration should make it easier to obtain meaningful reform of our immigration policies.

I'm not crazy - my mother had me tested - but I AM offended by illegal immigration, and if a judge of all people can't figure out why, here's a hint: the phrase "illegal immigration" starts with the word "illegal".

Furthermore, it's not xenophobic to simply acknowledge the self-evident fact that we are better than they are, which they concede by their desperation to come here and take some of what we have already built rather than do the work to build their own in the lands God gave them.

We stand for what is just. We proclaim our sovereignty over this land, albeit in a pathetically wimpy fashion, and we go to great lengths to promise justice for all. These people have cut in line, and I don't respect them and I don't think they are U.S. material. We're breeding our own criminal class, accepting these people who think nothing of defying our government and our law. Imagine how they feel about such minor restrictions as auto insurance, drinking and driving, rape, and littering. We have all these millions of people on our streets who are not morally inclined to obey any law but their own. Just like their illegal presence, they will break all these other laws with impunity, until someone proves to them that they must obey the law. We are at the point of surrendering our law to their horde, when major politicans speak of these people as if they are somehow acceptable - they are not - or even victims - they are not. I am nowhere near ready to concede this defeat.

Moving to economics, we don't need them. We can expel them. Unemployment throughout the recent years of crisis has remained low for college graduates, but skyrocketed for the unskilled, which is exactly the sector displaced by illegals. If there were suddenly 11 million unskilled openings, unskilled wages would rise because of demand, and the economy would look a little different, but that realignment would not necessarily be a bad thing. We've adjusted to the aberration of their presence and come to take it as normal, but we could perfectly well change back to the days when construction work was prized and a neighborhood kid could make a few bucks raking leaves.

The way to eliminate illegal immigration is to make immigration legal.

True that the country, like the planet, is suffering lack of lebensraum, water, clean air, fish, wolves and a host of other things. True, as well, that our welfare state attracts immigrants who prefer gummint benefits to working.

The solution is to cancel our pro-natalist policies in favor of attracting immigrants already potty-trained and educated and to eliminate every vestige of our welfare state.

What say we adopt the same rules the Mexican government applies to illegal immigration and then there will be no more criticism from that source, right? Mexican rules are so harsh for illegals we would surely get no more argument from the constitutionalists here that would love to love immigration, if only we did more of the legal kind. Judge Posners obtuseness on this point is really disheartening but maybe he's just being coy.

And we arent running out of anything but clear thinking. Just to put "lebensraum" into context, you can do some simple googling/arithmetic and you'll find that you could fit over 8 billion people into the census description of "land" of just the state of Texas, and the population density would equal Cook county, IL. I wouldnt want to do that to Texas and personally wouldnt want to live there but then I dont want to live in Cook county either. Just sayin'.